Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 27, 2015, 05:21:53 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 603
26  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Chance Clinton Doesn't Run on: January 23, 2015, 11:48:13 pm
It's hilarious how Democrats are hanging onto her heels like a bunch of pathetic losers anyway, after what they did to her in 2008. I think it would be hilarious if she didn't run and just gave them all the big F.U.
27  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Chance Clinton Doesn't Run on: January 23, 2015, 11:39:28 pm
F__ the national Democratic party. If the Democrats try to attack Clinton for not running, I would leave the Democratic party, and so should she. Further, any party that tries to interfere with the civil liberties of private citizens would be inherently totalitarian and should be destroyed immediately.

The last thing the Democrats should want is a candidate who is physically and mentally unprepared to run. Even if elected, such a person would be a bad president and only serve to eviscerate the party further than the damage Obama has already done (down-ballot).
28  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Why the Zell Miller transformation? on: January 23, 2015, 11:33:49 pm
It's amazing how as recently as the early 2000s, guys like Max Cleland, Zell Miller, and Roy Barnes strode across Georgia politics like colossi. It must have been multiracial coalitions of whites and blacks that put these men into power. Impossible to imagine today. In many ways, the South has been regressing since the 1990s, similarly to how it regressed during post-Reconstruction in 1873-1908.
29  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Best campaign: Clinton 1992 Reagan 1980 or Obama 2008 on: January 23, 2015, 03:35:41 pm
Obama's 2008 was clearly the realignment that the Dems had been hoping for since Clinton 1992.  Where states like NV, CO, PA and NH have offset the loss of Ohio river valley and the bible belt which includes MO and WVA.

Except Clinton won all 4 of those states, and won 3 of those states twice. Obama hasn't really gained the Democrats anything, except Virginia which was already turning blue in 2004.

Gore and Kerry lost a very close races in NV and OH and cost them the election, clearly NV 4 or OH 20 would have put either of them in the W.H., since 2000, not 1992, Obama did give Democrats something.

Well Democrats won both states in 1992 and lost them both in 2000 so I don't see why one would argue 2000 gave them to the Democrats. "Took" would be a better word.
30  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Best campaign: Clinton 1992 Reagan 1980 or Obama 2008 on: January 23, 2015, 03:29:56 pm
Obama's 2008 was clearly the realignment that the Dems had been hoping for since Clinton 1992.  Where states like NV, CO, PA and NH have offset the loss of Ohio river valley and the bible belt which includes MO and WVA.

Except Clinton won all 4 of those states, and won 3 of those states twice. Obama hasn't really gained the Democrats anything, except Virginia which was already turning blue in 2004.
31  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Best campaign: Clinton 1992 Reagan 1980 or Obama 2008 on: January 23, 2015, 02:53:45 pm
Clinton, because his election actually brought a national realignment.  Obama couldn't have won in 2008 if Clinton hadn't in 1992.
1992 was not a realignment. If it was, WV, LA, AR, KY would still be voting Democrat.

1988 was a realignment.

I agree. I hate how everyone says/said: "Oh wow! Look at that 1992 map! Clinton made states like California and Pennsylvania blue forever." These states did not trend Democratic because of Clinton! I really feel bad for Dukakis... if he had at least won CA or VT (which he lost very narrowly, along with PA and IL), Clinton wouldn't be given much credit for some kind of "realignment". And Clinton would have won a much narrower victory without Perot (probably not more than 290 EV). He also won many of the states by a very small margin (for example Ohio, Georgia, New Hampshire and New Jersey).
Exactly! For example, if does anyone really believe that Pennsylvania and California were going to stay Republican for long after Reagan left? Those states changed based on trends that started in the 70s and 80s, hell even the 60s.

If Clinton "realigned" politics, then we simply would not have the electoral map we have today.

Completely right. And I also don't understand why so many Democrats think that it was important that Clinton made these "inroads" (which he really never made) in the South. Yes, "muh honey Bill" got some white women in the South to vote for him but he wasn't even able to carry Texas (which every winning Democrat up to that point had carried). In my opinion, it was a major achievement by Bush to carry Texas and Florida (especially Texas) with such a high Perot vote. I don't want to generalize, but Clinton got the same and in some states higher (!) black vote share than Dukakis in many of the southern states even with THREE candidates on the ballot. Basically, Whites were split between the three candidates and African Americans were united behind Clinton. That probably explains a lot why Clinton won 4 southern states each time. Heck, I even think that Dukakis' performance in Texas in '88 was more impressive than Clinton's in 92.

And I really don't buy the myth that Perot voters would have split 50-50. Especially not in the South. The 1996 exit polls and the demographics of Perot voters prove that as well. Furthermore, the Democrat doesn't need the South to win anymore (Obama would have von even if he had lost the whole South, including VA).
The Dukakis coalition of the North +West is basically all the Democrats need anymore after Obama perfected it. The South is just insurance at this point.

It somehow reminds me of Hillary'ss electability argument in 2008. She argued that she would do much better than Obama against McCain and win more EVs. Yet, she probably would have done worse than Obama in the Electoral College, even if she had won MO and WV/KY (probably MO, I don't believe she would have won KY/WV).
I could see her winning MO, coming very close in WV/KY, and losing NC.

That would be fewer EV than Obama got (even though not that many fewer). What about IN? I feel that it is a state that flipped because of Obama and his excellent campaign. IMO, Hillary would have lost it narrowly, too. Nevertheless, her argument was that she would have had a better chance of defeating McCain which certainly wasn't true.

Huh, I pretty much disagree 180 degrees with everything said above.
32  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which candidate do you think is completely overrated? on: January 22, 2015, 11:11:22 am
Why would someone who has a 99% chance of winning the nomination and a 50% chance (at worst) of winning the general not run? Unless they really don't want to be president, which we already know isn't a problem for Hillary.

Because she's been in the extremely high stress position of the national political spotlight for over 20 years consecutively and is too tired for another grueling 10 years of campaigns and governing, by the end of which she'll be nearly 80.

Because she doesn't want her grandchild to grow up with scurrilous accusations on her character like people saying she's a witch and she killed Vince Foster, etc. Because she's sick of such things herself.

Because no matter what she does the press will always treat her every move as a political calculation and will never admit that she has genuine opinions and hopes for this country, like a normal human being.

Because she's actually an incredibly smart woman who understands that just because she seems inevitable today, that doesn't mean anything come a year and a half from now.

Because she's been demonized, vilified, slandered, misunderstood, humiliated, cheated on, condescended to, and erased, and she just doesn't give that much of a crap anymore.

Because she doesn't owe anybody anything, including her "supporters" and hacks and other people in the Democratic party who want her to run for their own selfish interests.

Because she too shares the desire for a new generation to step up.

Any of those reasons might be a reason.
33  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Opinion of Johnny Cash on: January 21, 2015, 03:30:15 pm
FF.
34  Forum Community / Forum Community / 'American Sniper' vs. 'Stolz der Nation' on: January 21, 2015, 11:34:02 am
I think I have to give it to 'American Sniper'. That Zoller guy is a confirmed a-hole. On the other hand, he's a fictional a-hole.
35  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama pushes online data collection and harsher CFAA penalties on: January 21, 2015, 11:18:18 am
The administration needs to focus on international cyber-security with the aim of establishing a multilateral legal framework/treaty between countries like the U.S., Russia, and China to define what will be considered 'acceptable' versus 'hostile' hacking. The countries need to come to an agreement on the rules of engagement in cyberspace, so to speak. Such a treaty could then be expanded to cover the world and establish global norms. Focusing on domestic script kiddies and people like Aaron Swartz would be a mistake.
36  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Opinion of Debbie Wasserman Schultz on: January 20, 2015, 05:44:36 pm
DWS has two cycles under her belt: 2012 was a highly successful cycle, seeing not only the Democrats reelect the president, but gains in the House and Senate. In the 2014 cycle, Democrats lost 13 seats in the House and 9 seats in the Senate.

As far as the House result, I don't see how anyone can say that it was exceptionally bad. After all, in the sixth year of the George W. Bush presidency, his party lost over 30 seats. Granted, the Republicans were starting from a high base, but a 13 seat change in the House is not huge by any measure.

As far as the Senate result, a 9 seat loss sounds like a lot, but the Democrats were starting from the absurdly high class of 2008 (a similar loss occurred for the 1986 Senate Republicans; no one ever talks about that election as a wave/disaster). Almost all of the major Senate races were in Romney states; they only lost two Senate races in Obama states (Colorado and Iowa). And of the two, Colorado was exceedingly close, with the GOP having nominated a strong candidate in Cory Gardner. In Iowa, the Democratic candidate committed about the worst gaffe imaginable. This is the only area where the party can be said to have screwed up on recruitment. However, this was mainly the fault of the candidate himself, and of the DSCC secondly, and only thirdly of the DNC.

So she has one unambiguously good presidential cycle and one meh off-year cycle in the sixth year of an unpopular president.

Hardly the stuff of the "worst" DNC chair some people are saying. I mean compare that to Tim Kaine. When he took office, the Democrats were the majority of every branch of government. Within two years they'd suffered not only a 7 seat Senate loss but the biggest losses since the Depression in the House, a 63 seat wipeout, in a critical year that allowed them to be outmaneuvered by redistricting. Most losses at the state level came in 2010, as well. By any measure, Kaine's record is far worse than DWS, if we are judging DNC chairs by electoral performance.
37  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WaPo / ABC national poll: Clinton 56% Huckabee 39% on: January 20, 2015, 01:02:58 pm
What happened to Huckabee? I remember back in 2008 he was considered a decently strong candidate. I even remember one person who was knowledgeable about politics and a Democrat, say he was worried about the possible matchup due to Huckabee's charisma and his ability to steal economic issues away from Hillary.
38  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Has anyone in your family talked to you about their 2016 election preferences? on: January 19, 2015, 09:47:14 pm
Not about 2016. However, everyone in my family knows I love Hillary. Also, I got my parents to vote for Anthony Brown.
39  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Opinion of John Denver on: January 19, 2015, 08:36:43 pm
FF of course.
40  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Santorum: Cruz & Paul are "bomb throwers" with no accomplishments on: January 19, 2015, 08:34:01 pm
Haha, I'm going to enjoy these GOPers ripping each other to shreds for the next 12-15 months.
41  General Politics / Economics / California zooms past Russia, Italy, and soon Brazil in GDP on: January 19, 2015, 03:54:43 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-16/brown-s-california-overtakes-brazil-with-companies-leading-world.html

A little misleading, since this is based on nominal GDP which is heavily impacted by the strong dollar, but still quite a contrast to the doom-and-gloom stories we were seeing out of CA just a few years ago.
42  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Opinion of Debbie Wasserman Schultz on: January 19, 2015, 03:44:53 pm
The fact that people think Debbie Wasserman Schultz has any impact, much less a big impact, on which party does well in elections is amusing. The vast majority of voters have no idea who she is, and those that do are likely to be political junkies who are already on a particular team.

Considering the posts like these:

Shrill b**ch

To quote my once and future Congressman: Unladylike.

and the demographics of this forum.....well, draw your own conclusions.

Goodness gracious, ChairmanSanchez isn't even worth debating anymore. In any case, ^^ duly noted.
43  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Opinion of Debbie Wasserman Schultz on: January 19, 2015, 02:18:21 pm
Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.
Romney lost the Presidency because he's Mitt Romney, not because DWS is some type of genius.
By that logic, Democratic Senatorial candidates lost because they were running in an unfavorable year, not because DWS is some kind of secret Republican.
The year was unfavorable due to DWS's incompetence. Who here seriously believes DWS is a secret Republican? She's just another idiot party chair.
The year was unfavorable because the president had a 41 percent approval rating. Who here said she was a genius? She's just a great party chair.
And why was the President's approval rating that low? Shouldn't the party have worked to gin those numbers up a bit? It's not like Congress had better approval ratings....
The president's approval ratings are his own responsibility. The party chair can't control them. The president is the boss.
In my view, the DNC Chair (and the RNC Chair, when a Republican is President) has two responsibilities: get Democrats elected, and defend the President. So far, DWS has failed at both of those. Don't try and steal Romney's credit for defeating himself away from him.
Well, according to your standards, she has gotten the most important Democrat elected, and if the latest ABC-Washington Post poll is to be believed, his approval rating today is higher than when she was announced as chair. She has succeeded at both. One can't pin all the blame on Romney's defeat on him- after all, the Democrats ran a good campaign too.

In any case, I believe IceSpear is correct.

Also, didnt you already lose a debate to me over DWS? Back looking for more, I see Cheesy
44  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Opinion of Debbie Wasserman Schultz on: January 19, 2015, 01:44:38 pm
Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.
Romney lost the Presidency because he's Mitt Romney, not because DWS is some type of genius.
By that logic, Democratic Senatorial candidates lost because they were running in an unfavorable year, not because DWS is some kind of secret Republican.
The year was unfavorable due to DWS's incompetence. Who here seriously believes DWS is a secret Republican? She's just another idiot party chair.
The year was unfavorable because the president had a 41 percent approval rating. Who here said she was a genius? She's just a great party chair.
And why was the President's approval rating that low? Shouldn't the party have worked to gin those numbers up a bit? It's not like Congress had better approval ratings....
The president's approval ratings are his own responsibility. The party chair can't control them. The president is the boss.
45  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Opinion of Debbie Wasserman Schultz on: January 19, 2015, 01:36:48 pm
Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.
Romney lost the Presidency because he's Mitt Romney, not because DWS is some type of genius.
By that logic, Democratic Senatorial candidates lost because they were running in an unfavorable year, not because DWS is some kind of secret Republican.
The year was unfavorable due to DWS's incompetence. Who here seriously believes DWS is a secret Republican? She's just another idiot party chair.
The year was unfavorable because the president had a 41 percent approval rating. Who here said she was a genius? She's just a great party chair.
46  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Opinion of Debbie Wasserman Schultz on: January 19, 2015, 01:32:39 pm
Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.
Romney lost the Presidency because he's Mitt Romney, not because DWS is some type of genius.
By that logic, Democratic Senatorial candidates lost because they were running in an unfavorable year, not because DWS is some kind of secret Republican.
47  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Opinion of Debbie Wasserman Schultz on: January 19, 2015, 01:01:17 pm
Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.

She didn't do this, but to her lasting credit, she gave us the best Republican majorities since 1929. And also, under her tenure, Democrats lost ground for governors, state legislatures, and lost the Senate.

And also under her tenure, the Republicans lost the presidency for another four years, which Republicans would assuredly trade going back to 2011 levels at Senate, House, Governors and state legislatures in exchange for.
48  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Opinion of Debbie Wasserman Schultz on: January 19, 2015, 12:38:13 pm
Odd that Republicans would dislike her given all the work she's done to give them a majority in Congress

Yes, must have been hard work to somehow transform the huge Democratic majorities in Congress returned after the 2010 elections into Republican majorities.
49  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Is Hillary Clinton overrated or underrated on the Atlas Forum? on: January 19, 2015, 10:52:16 am
Moral character: far, far underrated
Electoral chances: far, far overrated
50  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Would you describe Hillary Clinton as a 'populist'? on: January 19, 2015, 10:45:49 am
Of course. She's always been a supporter of the rights of ordinary people.
That's funny. Wait, you're serious?

Of course, my friend, which is why they support her so.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 603


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines